Tag Archives for Ph.D.

How the Election Impacts Social Security

Published in Woonsocket Call on July 24, 2016

On the final night of the Republican National Convention (RNC) an average of 32 million Americans tuned in to watch Donald J. Trump, a New York Real Estate Developer, author, television personality and now politician, formally accepted the GOP nomination for President of the United States.

After he delivered his July 21 speech, reporters, political commentators, and even postings trending on twitter called Trump’s hour and 15 minute speech (4,400 words) “dark” because of its stark tone and content. This GOP presidential candidate’s speech was even referred to as being the longest acceptance speech in history since 1972.

Before more than 2,400 delegates Trump, 70, pledged to be the nation’s law and order president who would crack down on crime and violence. America first would be Trump’s mantra during the negotiation of international trade deals and the existing NAFTA trade accord would be renegotiated.

Trump also called for defending the nation’s borders against illegal immigrants and giving parents more choice in choosing schools for their children. And to the forgotten men and woman across the country who were laid-off because of President Obama’s mishandling of the economy Trump promised to be their voice. Syrian refugees would be vetted and only those individuals who “will support our values and love our people” will be admitted, he said.

Trump Ignores Social Security in Speech

Aging advocates say that Trump’s acceptance speech was short on details when it can to domestic policy, specifically Social Security and Medicare. But, you won’t need tea leaves to read how a future Trump Administration will change the way the nation supports its retirees. .

According to Max Richtman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), the choice of Governor Mike Pence as Trump’s running mate should send “a very clear message to America’s seniors that their priorities will hold little weight in a Trump administration.” While Trump has promised on the campaign trail that he won’t cut Social Security and Medicare.

During his 12 years serving as a U.S. Congressman, Pence consistently voted in favor of GOP legislative efforts to cut benefits in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, says Richtman, charging that Trump’s vice presidential running mate is one of a few Congressional lawmakers that has a strong “anti-seniors voting record.”

Richtman says that “Mike Pence was one of Congress’ biggest proponents of privatization. He supports cutting Social Security benefits by raising the retirement age, reducing the COLA, means-testing and turning Medicare into “CouponCare.” As he told CNN, ‘I’m an all of the above guy. I think we need to look at everything that’s on the menu,’ and the record shows he has done just that by supporting every form of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefit cut proposed in the past decade.”

While Trump has promised not to cut Social Security benefits on his year-long campaign trail, he continues to surround himself with advisors who are “polar opposite” of his positions says Richtman. “They say actions speak louder than words — Donald Trump’s choice of Mike Pence as his Vice-Presidential running mate will speak volumes to American seniors,” he adds.

Political Experts Weigh in

Darrell M. West, Ph.D., Vice President and Director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, says that “Trump is on record as saying he does not want to cut Social Security so that is considerably different from most Republican leaders, who support benefit reductions as a way to balance its books. This probably is the reason the [GOP] platform is vague on Social Security. The party could not reconcile Trump’s view on not cutting benefits with the party’s general view that cuts are needed. That left them with a reference to market solutions without explaining what that meant.”

“Party leaders have said they want to raise the retirement age for people under age 50. That issue certainly would be on the issue in a Trump presidency although it is not clear how he views that issue. But there would be significant support in a GOP-run Congress for doing that and cutting the benefits of future retirees,” adds West.

West believes that “Democrats have a very good chance of recapturing control of the Senate. If that happens, that will allow them to block benefit reductions or raising the retirement age, he says.

Wendy Schiller, professor and chair, Department of Political Science at Brown University, warns that talking about changing Social Security can be risky and this “involves a depth of knowledge about entitlement financing that eludes most political candidates especially those without any political experience.”

The Brown professor of politics does not see Trump tackling this issue in any meaningful way in the campaign and she does not believe it will be a priority for him or the GOP if he wins. “Recall George W. Bush tried to reform Social Security immediately after he won reelection in 2004 – by late January 2005 it was dead on arrival in Congress,” she says.

“Overall I am not sure the GOP leadership in the Congress has fully processed what a Trump presidency would look like in terms of policy or what his priorities might be. It is unclear to me that they will align closely and getting anything through Congress these days is nearly impossible, no matter who sits in the Oval Office,” she adds.

Stark Differences in Platforms to Fix Social Security

On Friday, the released Democratic Platform released reveal a stark difference as how to the Democratic and Republican parties will fix the ailing Social Security program. The GOP platform. Although current retirees and those close to retirement will receive their benefits, changes are looming with a Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress. For younger generations all benefit cut options to be put on the table, opposing the lifting of the payroll tax cap and sees privatization of Social Security as a way for older American’s to create wealth for use in retirement. On the other hand, the Democratic Party platform calls for a strengthening and expansion of the existing Social Security program. The Democrats oppose any attempts to “cut, privatize or weaken” Social Security, and calls for lifting the payroll tax and exploring a new COLA formula.

NCPSSM’s Richtman notes “ It’s also very telling that while the GOP buried their cuts and privatization plans for Social Security under the Platform’s Government Reform heading, the Democrats addressed Social Security, as they should, as part of their plan to restore economic security for average Americans. That’s been Social Security’s fundamental role for more than 80 years — providing an economic lifeline impacting the lives of virtually every American family.”

As AARP’s John Hishta noted in his July 22 blog, even though the “political spotlight was not on Social Security” at the RNC in Cleveland, delegates, rank-and-file politicians and even political operatives that he talked with clearly understand the programs importance to retirees and younger generations.

“If political leaders fail to act, future retirees could lose up to $10,000 a year. All beneficiaries could face a nearly 25 percent cut in their benefit,” warns Hishta. .

Hishta tells his blog readers that “AARP’s Take a Stand campaign left the RNC with renewed determination to make updating Social Security a bigger part of the presidential debate.” He pledges to continue pushing for strengthening and expanding the nation’s Social Security program at next week’s Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia and until the November presidential elections.

To keep informed about Social Security discussion during this presidential campaign go to http://takeastand.aarp.org/,

Candidates Mum on Social Security

Published in Pawtucket Times on February 8, 2016

Just a week before the New Hampshire primary, scheduled for Tuesday, February 9, AARP releases a new survey, of likely primary voters, that finds Social Security is “one issue that transcends the partisan divide and unites people of all ages.” Both surveyed Democrats and Republicans alike agreed that all presidential candidates should give details as to how they will strengthen or expand Social Security.

In recent presidential debates, moderators focus on the economy, abortion, gun control, immigration and defense, hardly touching on aging issues. The January 29 AARP survey found that voters want more specifics about Social Security. More than nine in 10 New Hampshire primary voters across party lines and age groups say it is important for presidential candidates to lay out their specific plans to make Social Security financially sound for future generations.

Presidential Candidates Dodging Social Security Issue

“New Hampshire primary voters are sending a clear message to the presidential candidates that having a plan to keep Social Security strong is a test of leadership,” said AARP New Hampshire State Director Todd Fahey. “Yet, some presidential candidates are dodging the issue. Our survey confirms New Hampshire primary voters agree if a candidate thinks they’re ready to be president, they should at least be able to tell voters where they stand on Social Security’s future.”

According to AARP, the recent survey of 1,004 likely New Hampshire primary voters, was conducted by telephone from January 12 through January 16, 2016. By design, half of the respondents consist of likely Democratic primary voters (501) and half consist of likely Republican primary voters (503).

The AARP survey is part of nonprofit’s 2016 presidential election issue campaign, “Take A Stand.” In November, the nonprofit launched its its 2016 election accountability campaign initiative which demands on behalf of America’s voters that presidential candidates detail their specific positions on making Social Security financially sound.
The survey findings indicate that nine in 10 New Hampshire primary voters (93 percent Democrat and 92 percent Republican) across party lines and age groups say its important for presidential candidates to lay out a detailed plan to make Social Security financially sound for future generations. Regardless of age, nearly half or more of likely primary voters in each party think this is “very important.”

Also, more than three in four New Hampshire primary voters, across party lines and across age groups, agree that having a plan for Social Security is a basic threshold for presidential leadership. This includes 89 percent of likely Democratic primary voters and 80 percent of likely Republican primary voters.

Moreover, nearly nine in ten or more voters across both parties and age groups believe it is important that the next president and congress take action to make Social Security financially sound. This includes 96 percent of Democratic primary voters as well as 92 percent of Republican primary voters.

“If our leaders don’t act, future generations could see their Social Security benefits cut by 25 percent. That’s a $4,000 to $10,000 per year benefit cut! This survey confirms how critical it is for the next president to have a plan to update Social Security and a commitment to act on that plan,” said Fahey.

On the question of which presidential candidate they expect to vote for on February 9, the AARP survey found that among likely Republican primary voters, Donald Trump is the leading choice for president (preferred by 32 percent) with Marco Rubio preferred by 14 percent and John Kasich preferred by 13 percent However, more than one in four (26 percent) are less certain who will get their vote.

Among likely Democratic primary voters, Bernie Sanders is the leading choice for president (preferred by 59 percent), with Hillary Clinton coming in second (preferred by 33 percent. But one in five (21 percent are less certain who will get their vote.

“AARP said early on in the election cycle that Social Security is too critical a matter – and one affecting far too many people – to allow it to be skimmed over, breezed by, or paid only lip service,” said AARP Rhode Island State Director Kathleen Connell. “The presidential candidates need to take a stand on how they would update Social Security to keep it financially strong and adequate for future generations,” she says.

“Unfortunately, Social Security does not seem to be top-of-mind for candidates nor a discussion that finds its way into the debates,” says Connell, observing that some candidates, including some frontrunners, remain silent on the Social Security issue.
(You can get the very latest news and read what candidates with plans did say at http://www.2016takeastand.org.)

Connell says, “The challenge itself – keeping Social Security strong for the future – gets talked about a lot. You can be sure that when a candidate or elected federal official visits a senior center there will be a pledge (one I happen to believe has been sincere in Rhode Island) to protect Social Security.”

“You don’t hear so much about how. The devil is in the details. And, as the saying goes, ‘It’s complicated,’” adds Connell.

Older Voters Have Political Clout

From inside the Beltway, Darrell M. West, Ph.D., Vice President and Director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, considers voters age 50 and over are one of the most important voting blocs in the nation. “It is a numerous group and these people vote in higher percentages than those who are younger. They often are decisive in elections and candidates have to take their views seriously,” says West.

Connell agrees about the clout of older voters. “The average age for a Rhode Island voter in the 2012 presidential election was 48.6, and that was up from 48.5 in 2010. We know that older Rhode Islanders vote in high percentages and we know that the 50+ population is grown as people live longer. But I have to say that when it comes to Social Security, voters 50 and older are united on the issue; they expect some form of accountability from the candidates on how they would lead on this issue, she says.

Anyone who thinks they’re ready to be President of the United States should be able to tell voters how they’ll keep Social Security strong,” adds Connell. “If our leaders don’t act, future retirees could lose up to $10,000 a year. Every year our leaders wait and do nothing, finding a solution grows more difficult,” she says.

Aging issues impact everyone, says Connell. “When I am asked about ‘aging issues it seems to me to indicate how people often default to a narrow view of ageing. Access to and the cost of healthcare is an issue for all ages. Taxation is an issue for all ages. Affordable housing is an issue for all ages. Protecting pensions is an issue for all ages, even for voters working in their 30s or 40s – as is the issue of Social Security. Our aging population presents a challenge to all Americans and I think you will see 50+ voters becoming increasingly liked-minded making more and more of an effort to be heard.”

Putting the Brakes on Testosterone Prescriptions

Published in Pawtucket Times on March 30, 2015

Sophisticated mass marketing pitching testosterone to combat age-related complaints combined with lax medical guidelines for testosterone prescribing can be hazardous to your physical health, even leading to strokes and death, warns an editorial in this month’s Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
The March 2015 editorial coauthored by Dr. Thomas Perls, MD, MPH, Geriatrics Section, Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center in Boston, and Dr. David Handelsman, MBBS, Ph.D., ANZAC Research Institute, in New South Wales, Australia, expressed concern over commercial-driven sales of testosterone, effectively increasing from “$324 million in 2002 to a whopping $2 billion in 2012, and the number of testosterone doses prescribed climbing from “100 million in 2007 to half a billion in 2012.”

Pitting Patients Against Patients

The editorial authors see the “40 fold” increase of testosterone sales as the result of “disease mongering,” the practice of widening the diagnostic boundaries of an illness and aggressively promoting the disease and its treatment in order to expand the markets for the drug. Glitzy medical terms, like “low T” and “andropause,” showcased in direct-to-consumer product advertising pit aging baby boomers against their physicians, who demand the prescriptions, say the authors.

“Clearly, previous attempts to warn doctors and the public of this disease mongering that is potentially medically harmful and costly have not been effective, says co-author Dr. Perls.

The epidemic of testosterone prescribing over the last decade has been primarily the proposing of testosterone as a tonic for sexual dysfunction and/or reduced energy in middle-aged men, neither of which are genuine testosterone deficiency states,” observes Dr. Handelsman.

According to the National Institutes on Aging (NIA), the nation’s media has increasingly reported about “male menopause,” a condition supposedly caused by diminishing testosterone levels in aging men. “There is very little scientific evidence that this condition, also called andropause or viropause, exists. The likelihood that an aging man will experience a major shutdown of testosterone production similar to a woman’s menopause is very remote.”

The authors agree with the NIA’s assessment, but go further. They point out in their editorial that for many men, testosterone does not decline with age among men retaining excellent general health, and if it does, the decline is often due to common underlying problems such as obesity and poor fitness. Those who hawk testosterone have developed advertising that focus on common complaints among older men such as decreased energy, feeling sad, sleep problems, decreased physical performance or increased fat.

But, many times a testosterone level won’t even be obtained and the patient is told that, simply based on these common symptoms alone or with minor reductions in serum testosterone, they have “late onset hypogonadism” or that their erectile dysfunction may be improved with testosterone treatment, say the authors. But the authors also point out the true hypogonadism is the cause in fewer than 10% of men with erectile dysfunction.

FDA Enters Debate

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) recent dual commission findings concluded that testosterone treatment (marketed as ‘low T’) is not indicated for age-associated decline. The benefits of this “deceptive practice” remain unproven with the risks far outweighing the perceived benefits,” says the agency. Pharmaceutical companies are now required to include warning information about the possibility of an increased risk of heart attacks and stroke on all testosterone product labels.

Health Canada, Canada’s FDA, recently echoed the FDA’s committee findings that age-related hypogonadism has not been proven to be a disease-justifying treatment with testosterone. Both agencies warn of an increased risk of blood clots in the legs and lungs and the possibility of increased risk for heart attack associated with testosterone use.

In a statement, James McDonald, the chief administration officer for the Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline, says: “There is a concern in healthcare regarding direct-to-consumer prescribing of medication. At times, the prescription is not evidence-based, and can lead to misuse. There is concern with Testosterone, a schedule 3 controlled substance,that can be used as a performance-enhancing drug. The Rhode Island Board of Medical Licensure (BMLD) investigates complaints regarding all types of misuse of prescription medications as well as complaints regarding over-prescribing.”

Drs. Handelsman and Perls also warn about another drug commonly hawked for anti-aging, growth hormone. The FDA requires that doctors perform a test to demonstrate that the body does not produce enough growth hormone. “Those who market and sell HGH for these common symptoms nearly never perform the test because if they did a properly performed test, it would almost never be positive because the diseases that cause growth hormone deficiency in adults, such as pituitary gland tumors, are very rare,” said Perls. Growth hormone is well known for its side effects, including joint swelling and pain and diabetes. Ironically, opposite of anti-aging claims, growth hormone accelerates aging, increases cancer risk and shortens life span in animal studies.

In the editorial, Perls and Handelsman call upon professional medical societies and governmental agencies to take definitive steps to stop disease mongering of growth hormone and testosterone for conjured-up deficiencies.
“These steps include the banning of ‘educational’ and product advertising of testosterone for these contrived indications,” said Perls. “Furthermore, the FDA and Health Canada should require a physician’s demonstration of a disease process proven to benefit from testosterone administration in order to fill a lawful prescription for testosterone.”

Tightening Up Prescription Guidelines

The issue of prescribing testosterone is firmly on the medical profession’s radar screen with the FDA’s recent committee’s findings and Perls and Handelsman’s pointed editorial calling for the medical profession to seriously tighten up the lax consensus guidelines in order to stop the medically inappropriate prescribing of testosterone.
Rather than pushing testosterone, wouldn’t it be a “mitzvah – a good deed- if the nation’s pharmaceutical companies ran public service commercials stressing the importance of losing weight, exercising and eating nutritious meals as a way to effectively combat age-related problems, like low libido. But, this won’t happen because it is not a revenue generator or good for the company’s bottom line.

Herb Weiss, LRI ’12 is a Pawtucket-based writer covering aging, health care and medical issues. He can be reached at hweissri@aol.com.